• [deleted]

Mathematical structures can support any idea because the constraints are based on whatever the mathematician choses. The real world illusion or otherwise has constraints that must be defined and tested. A hologram still operates on well known optical principles so with that in mind holograms have nothing to do with illusions. Strominger should try another word, an imaginary theory rather than a holographic theory because we have a theory of holograms.

  • [deleted]

You can find anything mathematically but cannot find anything physically. These ideas are really challenging logic at a fundamental level.

FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly. I suspect many great thinker would lose. Steven King did something similar to see if he could still get published if no one knew who he was

    • [deleted]

    FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly.

    A truly excellent suggestion, and contains the reason why it probably won't happen.

    • [deleted]

    Hi Sophie, All,

    In the article the term "future" is used- Quote "the universe is a hologram projected back from the future". That such a future realm exists seems, taken at face value, to be metaphysical conjecture, as is its supposed infinity. Is that conjecture used because it gives the most beautiful mathematics? Is it necessary? or is use of that term (future) just the way in which the work is described for general consumption and there is a different understanding of the term by the researchers themselves?

    Isn't something very far away seemingly in the future only because it takes time for information about it to reach the distant observer. Who upon receipt and interpretation experiences it in his/her/its present time. Doesn't the "pre-written future", that actualised (materially existing) information, that will eventually lead to generation of present experience (a manifestation) co-exist with the "observer to be" within the uni-temporal or timeless space?

    I agree that the -seen universe (image universe)- is a kind of illusion.IMHO That information giving a 3D representation can be encoded upon a 2D surface is a very useful and important concept. I have previously read about it with interest.By the way I'm about to read "Information The new language of science" by Hans Christian Von Baeyer, that curiously I found in a local discount bookshop. It has a chapter called " Black holes where information goes to hide". Written in 2003- so not the latest work and ideas about information in physics, unlike the many FQXi articles : )

    • [deleted]

    The issue is really mathematics vs mechanics. Mechanics is aways mathematical but mathematics is not always mechanical. Einstein special theory is more mechanics than mathematics and the General theory is more mathematics than mechanics.

    Space can exist without time but time cannot exist without space. Time can be recorded by a clock or it can be recorded by space. Clocks are a common way but it does not tell us anything about time but more about transformations in events. Vibrating a space is the only way to know what time is.

    9 months later
    • [deleted]

    "SEPHIROT": EMET!!!: "Known Unknowns Versus Unknown Unknowns": It's a Jack-in-the-Box Universe: Ten-Digits; Log-Law Scale-Invariance; Utter-Simplicity: "Complexity" Versus "Complicatedness"; Zipf's-Law/ Hyperbolicity/ Inevitability (Archimedes); Bose- {Euler[(1732)] over-reals R)Ôê'_(k=1)^Ôê×Ô-'ÒÇ-1/k^R =ÔêÅ_PÔ-'1/((1-1/P^R ) )ÒÇ--= ÔêÅ_PÔ-'P^R/((P^R-1) ) ~ ÔêÅ_¤ëÔ-'e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)/((e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)-1) ) }-{Riemann, "Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Groesse", Monatsberichte der Berlin Akademie,(1859)] over-complex-numbers C): Ôê'_(k=1)^Ôê×Ô-'ÒÇ-1/k^( C) =ÔêÅ_PÔ-'1/((1-1/P^( C) ) )ÒÇ--= ÔêÅ_PÔ-'P^( CC)/((P^( C)-1) ) ~ ÔêÅ_¤ëÔ-'e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)/((e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)-1) )}-{Bernoulli-Newcomb[Am. J. Math. 4, 39(1881)]-{Planck(1901)]}-{Einstein(1905)]-Poincare[(1912)]-Weyl[Goett. Nach.???(1914); Math. Ann. 77, 313(1916)]-Bose(1924)-Einstein(1925)]-VS. Fermi(1927)-Dirac(1927)-Benford[J. Am. Phil. Soc. 78, 115(1938)]-Kac["The Mathematics of Statistical-Reasoning" (1955)]-Raimi[Sci. Am.(1969) ]-Hill[Proc. Am. Math. Soc.123,3,887(1995)logarithm-function scale-invariance("MAGNIFICAT", (Bach) proof]-Jech(1995)-Siegel, Antonoff, Pi, Smith[Am. Math. Soc./Math. Assn. Am./SIAM Joint Mtg., San Diego(2002)] -Benson[last-lecture!!!: Workshop: "Cohomology and Support of Algebraic-Representation-Theory", Julia Petsova, Eric Friedlander and David Benson eds., Pacific Institute for Mathematical Studies, University of Washington(2012)]-Chern[????]-Hirezbruch, Riemann, Roch Theorem!!! Finding and proof of a digits on-average[CAUSING] logarithmic-law Ôî®PÔî¬=ÒÇ-logÒÇ--_10 (1+1/d), by mathematicians mistakenly excluding physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole, as log-law Ôî®PÔî¬=ÒÇ-logÒÇ--_10 (1+1/(dÔêê[1,...,9] )), but in actuality purposely including the all-important physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole: Ôî®PÔî¬=ÒÇ-logÒÇ--_10 (1+1/(dÔêê[0ÔÇ╝!; 1,...,9] )) permits "EMET"/TRUTH, purposely sans any "specificity-of-(so miscalled)"complexity" tactics: NO: models("standard" nor any other), mechanisms, processes, parameters(proliferation: ad infinitum; ad nauseum!!!), "Digits"' classic (but not classical!) Newcombe(1881)-Poincare(1912)-Weyl(1914; 1916)-Benford(1938) "NeWBe-Law" P(d) = log10 (+1+1/d) [integer d * [0,9]] * Z ; versus, non-integer 0 < P < 1] (on average) statistical-correlations, with recent Browne-Hill-Mathews-Greespan popularizations, based upon recent Hill-Jech-Pietroniero ostensibly-"rigorous" proofs domination by [(logarithm-base - invariance) = (units-invariance) = (SCALE-invariance)], and Nigrini-Hill-Burton widespread forensic applications to fraud-detection, with indictments, prosecutions and convictions, has gotten Wall Street's attention, after Peters proof of SCALE-invariance dominance of economics' capital-markets so-called "complexity", as nothing else! (Anderson-Mandell-Pascual-Leone identically in nerves/brain/mind); FDA.applications: drug testing verification/qualification;... Digits['1,...,9] =(upon Benford-law algrbraic-inversion)= Bosons with d = 0 BEC(!!!), and denominator-EXPONENTIAL Taylor/power-series expansion to Zipf-law Hyperbolicity (Archimedes)INEVITABILITY!!!Attachment #1: 1_FULL_PAPER_COMPLEX_QUANTUM-STATISTICS_IN_FRACTAL-DIMENSIONS.pdfAttachment #2: FULL_PAPER_on_so_MIScalled_COMPLEXITY_IS_UTTER-SIMPLICITY_vs._COMPLICATEDNESS.pdf

    5 months later
    • [deleted]

    Teory of Everyhing (TOE) based on Set Theory

    Number zero 0 ≡ Ø = {} (empty set) represents BEING. Number 1 ≡ 0' = {0} = {Ø } represents quantum vacuum, number 2 ≡ 1' = {0,1} = {0, {0}}, = {Ø, {Ø }} represents electromagnetic energy, number 3 ≡ 2' = {0,1,2} = {0, {0}, {0, {0}} } = {Ø, {Ø, {Ø, {Ø }}}} represents elementary particles. Observer in physic has origin in BEING which is not a type of energy or matter we know and we describe with E=mc2.Attachment #1: TOE_-_Set_Theory.png

    3 months later

    What if the structure of the Universe is God's Mind as Hegel argued? All individual minds are a part of Universal Mind. This way all space points represent the whole Universe from their perspective - i.e. the Universe is a hologram.

    https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra

    mework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K

    ants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

    3 months later

    Akinbo et al.

    Our new big home, the 'Laniakea supercluster', video and links here; Scitech article.

    paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0880.

    Full Video.

    To give a better perspective on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'.

    But also be careful as they admit to many assumptions, saying;

    "Except for the very closest galaxies, uncertainties in distance measurements translate into uncertainties in the peculiar velocities of galaxies that are larger in amplitude than the actual peculiar velocities."

    Using Earth as a datum rest frame and assuming distances (we know redshift is a flawed basis), Omega and it's direction etc, only minor adjustments could mean the whole flow direction is REVERSED! i.e. (A crowd walking mainly north at different speeds would look like they're mostly walking south from the rest frame of a skateboard moving north at a speed 85% of the average.). The effect may be a called apparent 'time reversal', or just poor rationalisation.

    The clear logial conclusion in any case is that LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. What we actually find is that EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates. The logical rationale of discrete inertial systems with limited spatial 'domains' should then be a little clearer, I hope?

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Hi Peter,

      I agree with aspects of your post and misunderstand others. But thanks for showing me and others our new luxury mansion, the 'Laniakea supercluster'!

      "on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'". I still don't know why you have a difficulty with this. Is the CMBR in motion? And if so, relative to what? Most of the anisotropies in the CMBR appear to be related to cosmology and structure formation or intervening effects before reaching observer. Are there any dynamical anisotropies due CMBR motion?

      LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. Perhaps, as we have argued before, local 'rest frame' can vary relatively, to sun, then to galaxy then to Laniakea supercluster, then to ..., then to ..., then to.... Unless the universe is infinite, you must end at one largest and biggest mansion.

      "EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates".. This statement hides information. The values of c in LOCAL rest frames is not universal. When compared to each other, for example on the surface of a super dense neutron star, c will be much less in value than what we measure c as here on Earth. This is also why there is refraction (change in speed) when light traverses the vicinity of the star before it reaches us.

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      I don't 'have a difficulty', it's just a flawed conception. I suspect being unfamiliar with astronomy you've long harboured a false conception of bunches of 'objects', (i.e. components of a galaxy), moving THROUGH 'space'.

      That's incorrect. The local 'space' moves WITH the 'inertial systems'. Even the editor of Sci Am recently wrote about how galaxies rotate in what he termed 'lockstep', i.e. whole galaxies rotate like 'dinner plates', complete with the interstellar medium, (and halo and satellites out to many k light years) in the same way that it's not Earth' that orbits the sun but the whole Earth 'system'; atmoshpere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, plasmasphere.. EVERYTHING, at rest with the centre of mass of the central dense 'body'. Light does 'c' within that zone WRT THE LOCAL centre of mass frame, just like it does c through the ISM wrt the local Centre of mass GALAXY rest frame.

      That's the dichotomy, never resolved relativistically, of the "ecliptic plane issue" identified in my 2012 essay, IAU 2000 and for instance USNO Circ 179. (p6). The sun's kinetic 'domain limit' is the heliosheath, which is why Voyager appears to have 'slowed down' from our frame after crossing it. 100 years ago they thought space was 'nothing'. No wonder the residual confusion! But the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense; inertial systems are 'nested'.

      In simplistic terms, space IS a 'medium' (which is why it can expand!) and indeed contains far more of the mass/energy of the universe than baryonic matter! (objects') approx 70% as opposed to just 4%! Once you've grasped that conception you'll far better understand the video and concept of 'bulk flows' of the regions. EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame.

      You'll find a whole host of anomalies can be resolved once the confused 'interpretations' of SR are removed to allow causal logic to return!

      best wishes

      Peter

      It appears you don't understand my position since I am in full agreement with all in paragraph 2.

      But to the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense, I disagree. Read what the postulates say and mean and not your own interpretation of them.

      Also I doubt anyone can understand the meaning of "EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame".

      Such mixing of sense with nonsense is what sometimes creates the antagonism you see directed at some of the sense you make here.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      I identify the 'interpretation' of the postulates as the problem. I agree the original is nonsensical. Mine is based on Einstein's OWN final interpretation (his 1952 paper) dropping the original, saying "the entire theory is contained in the postulates" and conceptualizing it as;

      "small space 's', not thought of as bounded, in relative motion within large space 'S'."

      Akinbo,

      Einstein allowed a new logical SR postulate interpretation in his 1952 descriptions, distancing his theory from it's old interpretations as he knew;

      "The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of mathematical formulae which were right, or very nearly right, with physical interpretations which were often very badly wrong." (Jeans 1981).

      An interpretation of a theory is well recognised at NOT the theory but often a cocoon of woolly confusion, or "near-contradictions and excess baggage" (Wilczec 2012).

      As Mach said; "If, however, we so interpret it that we come into conflict with our experience, our interpretation is simply wrong."

      So lets drop ALL preconceived interpretations of the postulates. (That's YOURS TOO!) and see if they CAN be logically interpreted consistent with his 1952 constructions.

      PoR; "The phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." (same as the English; "..laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference.."

      I suggest that becomes entirely logically consistent if we consider each 'inertial system' ('frame of reference') as a 'local region of space', such as that encompassed by a bunch of electrons, with a single assignable group state of motion K. i.e. a 'centre of mass' rest frame. Smaller ones (K') are in relative motion within greater ones, so WITH domain boundaries. That's what the DFM invokes and finds perfectly consistent. It was only woolly prior assumptions that 'hid' it!

      "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

      That then goes almost without saying. If in motion through some background field in state K, the emitting body has some state K'. However large or small that system K' is, when the emissions leave it to propagate in the background system K they change speed at the boundary (TZ) to then do so at c in and wrt the new system rest frame K (so Doppler shifted).

      Again, only woolly preconceptions hid that logic.

      The logical system is 'Truth Function Logic' (TFL - see my 2012 essay) which applies to 'propositions', and brackets in arithmetic. Everything within a bracket relates ONLY to that bracket. We can have infinitely many bracketed functions within bracketed functions, hierarchically. NO COMPONENT WITHIN ONE CAN RELATE DIRECTLY TO ANY IN ANY OTHER!

      Consistently applying the same rule for inertial systems then allows Truth Function Logic to apply to the postulates. However the familiar old interpretation is falsified! (perhaps why AE's 1952 paper was subjugated!). I hope that throws light on my comment that seemed to upset you so much.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Peter,

      All what you are saying is correct but is already well known to Galileo and Newton.

      But the part, "Everything within a bracket relates ONLY to that bracket. We can have infinitely many bracketed functions within bracketed functions, hierarchically" is your own assumption, i.e. you can continue doing your bracketing infinitely. Newton disagrees with you. He suggests at some level if the universe is not infinite there is an ultimate limit to your bracketing. That is just the difference.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      No. It's the rules of logic not 'my' rule. You persistently ignore what I write and don't check the references so contradict me without basis! TFL is a propositional logic with hierarchical structure. The rule of brackets in arithmetic uses it. Neither are finite and both avoid the paradoxes of all others including calculus', including the 'infinity' paradox. (Actually quantum 'modal' logic does borrow a similar structure).

      TFL is well known as the ONLY logical structure that is not; "ultimately beset by paradox". Newton assumed the religious 'Big Bang' solution which must have had some 'position' in space, so leaves the problems both of 'what happened before', and 'what was around it'. Because it is not 'finite' you can always set your own background frame and the rules always work. If you wish to choose 'the universe' (as a 'rest frame') that's fine and valid, but you can only apply it LOCALLY. You CAN'T apply it as Newton suggested, which is equivalent to 'jumping' and ignoring intervening brackets.

      The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Try using Newtons assumption in an arithmetical equation. You'll get the same illogical nonsense we have to deal with in physics today. EM propagation ('light') speed near Earth is c wrt Earth's own inertial system rest frame K, NOT the centre of the galaxy, universe, or some other arbitrary planet in some other galaxy which may be doing 0.5c wrt Earth (K''''''''''')!

      Once you clear all the wool away that's what your left with. Unfamiliar, but impeccable when evaluated objectively! All I do is find a way well developed CORRECT findings (jigsaw puzzle pieces) can fit together. It's the only way as there's no 'picture on the box' except false ones we guess at. If we expect mainstream physicists to let go of old assumptions and test new ones then I propose we must prove that we can do so ourselves Akinbo!

      Best wishes

      Peter

        If you cannot give a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing' on the large scale without my reading Truth-Function-Logic I will oblige when I get the time. But it looks to me a Yes or No answer can be given.

        Regards

        Akinbo

        Akinbo,

        TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases. Even if you want to bring in a God you can do so. It's agnostic.

        But what's important is not only that it's the ONLY logical system that works universally but that it's the only kinetic system that can consistently resolve all the paradoxes surrounding SR; What can you falsify in this statement;

        "Light is re-emitted by each electron at c in that electrons centre of mass rest frame, and light thus changes speed to the local c on encountering all co-moving systems of 'matter'.

        I suggest that in the whole of science it's mainly initial unfamiliarity with newly encountered truths that prevents progress. That's how our neural networks operate; pattern matching'.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        PS There's a super little easy read book "Introducing Logic" By Cryan, Shatil and Mayblin. You can get one for less that 80 pence on 'Alibris'.

          You have "forced" me to read your Truth-Function-Logic and your 2012 essay again. I reply on the Faster than Light blog if you don't mind as I think it is more appropriate there. Or what do you think? I can repost here.

          Akinbo

          Concerning "a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing'" and "TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases".

          It is a question of details since it works perfectly in both cases. However, in my preferred view, the answer is 'Yes'. On the smallest of scales, I suggest the extended geometric point, possibly of Planck size limit and on the large scale, the universe itself, finite in size but expanding. So smallest bracket - the point, largest bracket - the universe itself.

          Akinbo